Scarcity and Justice

I would like to offer some thoughts on the notion that property rights are ways to mitigate and resolve conflicts that are presented to us by the unsharable nature of physical objects. I have also read that it is the scarcity of such physical objects that require us to treat them as private property.

I think scarcity is the salient aspect. If land were a much more abundant resource, it would not matter that we could not both occupy the same space at the same time; one or the other of us could just go elsewhere and be happy. Water, which comes close to being as abundant as air, is, under a wide variety of circumstances, so plentiful as to barely require a notion of property to avoid conflict. And then, of course, there is air, which, absent a pollution hazard, isn't given any consideration at all.

When scarcity has been mentioned in relation to property rights, it has often been spoken of in the way I did just now: if a specific resource is "scarce", then property rights are useful in regulating its disposition, but if plentiful, it would be unfair or inappropriate or unnecessary to do so. Since prerecorded music seems to be plentiful, it is unfair to expect it to be restricted by intellectual property rights.

One serious concern that is not addressed by this analysis is the necessity of human effort and cooperation. Most of our possessions are not "found objects", they are produced through our intelligent effort. Nor are they produced by us acting alone as individuals. Without the cooperative effort of others we would have virtually nothing. In fact, as social animals, it is very likely that we could not survive at all, let alone survive in comfort, without the help and cooperation of others. Defining, respecting, and reinforcing our relationships with others is necessary for our survival and well being, and is the basic fact that creates the necessity for justice. It is from the necessity for justice that our conceptions of property arise.

Rawls, I believe, stated this best: The need for justice arises from our need to cooperate under conditions of moderate scarcity. If there is an abundance of resources and our every need is indeed fulfilled by found objects with minimal and individual effort, then mutual cooperation is unnecessary and justice is not needed. If resources are so constrained that no amount of cooperation can possibly alleviate our suffering, we must live a zero-sum life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Justice would be impossible. Only under conditions of moderate scarcity, where we need to cooperate and we benefit substantially by doing so, is a conception of justice both necessary and possible.

Note that this scarcity is a general and pervasive condition that demands a general and pervasive conception of justice. An artist (or other producer) cannot, ultimately, live well without our cooperation just as we cannot, ultimately, live well without hers. When we deprive a composer or recording artist of her just compensation, we are NOT depriving her of her music. We are depriving her of the means to obtain the food, clothing and shelter that she needs. Not to mention the Porsche that she covets.

And why should she, of all producers, be so deprived? What did she do to deserve this disrespect that seems directed to her particular productive capabilities? She is doing something for us, just as any other producer is, and she deserves something in return, just as any other productive person does.

She may even deserve a Porsche.